MonteCarloSS.com
MonteCarloSS.com

CELEBRATING 20 YEARS!

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 539
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 539
He's obviously pulling the stock quad off his 7000 rpm capable 454


Justin
1986 Black SS
Upgrades: 350 L05 - Hooker Longtubes - FlowMaster True Dual 2.5" - Electric Cutouts - Electric Fans - Transcooler - Proforged Steering Kit - Astro Shaft - AR62 OUTLAW II Wheels - Energy Suspension Bushings - Bitflipper Chip - 87 ECM - Moog Springs and Ball Joints - Bilstein Shocks - Bucket Seats
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
oh i get it. anything that runs faster than 14s is a race car. if it isnt a stock 350 or smaller, its not a real street car. What's it like having something that slow? I wouldn't know, since every car I've had
for last 15 years has been a 350 or 400, with just cam/intake/headers on it and STILL faster than anything you three have. Like I said, keep telling people how to have slow cars. I'll keep telling them
how to go faster than the minivan next to them. Maybe you people can make anyone else with a decently quick car leave the site too. Just like all the others that were here when I became a member
and have left. Good job.


1985 Monte 406sbc, RHS ported 220s, Schoenfeld 1 3/4", 3" exhaust, Dynomax Ultra-Flo, Holley ported Strip Dominator, Dual Holley Blues, Holley HP 950, Comp roller 236/245, .570/.574
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,825
Likes: 12
M
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,825
Likes: 12
If you like Qjets, here a neat read about a couple guys who like them to much.
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/carburetors/olds-4-quadrajet-carbs-madness-hot-rodding-finest/

Bob

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 192
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by TooSlow406
Just like all the others that were here when I became a member and have left.


Don't beat yourself up too much, some of them probably left for reasons unrelated to you.

Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
I
Member
OP Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
We'll it does not fit lol the float adj are to tall, added 1.5" spacer. Test drove the double pumper today wow what a difference. Very crisp off idle secondaries right when you need them no vac lag. It's not on a stock engine the monte has a 421 s Murtha thumpa fast burn heads. The q jet was a SMI stage 3 800 cfm it was ok but unreliable sometimes you hit the gas and go sometimes not so much. I was always told vac sec vac sec on street ride well that's bs because I had a giant smile rolling around today. Can't wait for a test n tune night.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Sorry, I should have answered your question and avoided getting caught up in the quad vs Holley debate.

Yep, with your engine there should be,, and sounds like you're already seeing,, a night and day difference in throttle response between the Q-jet you replaced and the double pumper. Where the main difference in throttle response comes into play is the initial "hit" on the gas. The primary bore size on the Holley is a good bit larger than the quad and the secondaries are the same size on the Holley. So, when playing around at part throttle you're getting more flow with the same travel distance on the gas pedal and a lot better distribution of fuel. You should also see that you don't have to press the pedal as much as before while driving normally. I would expect you'll find,, IF you can stay out of the throttle (which is hard to do at first) that you won't notice a lot of difference in gas mileage. I didn't notice much when I went from a tricked out 750 vac Holley to an 850 AD DP. However, I wouldn't have cared even if it had and expect with the added fun factor you may feel the same way.

Hopefully you'll see an improvement in ETs. I've tuned and swapped a lot of carbs back in the day and sometimes there wouldn't be much of an improvement at all and other times it would be significant. It depends a lot on the stall speed, how close the original carb was dialed in and whether or not the secondaries were opened fully at launch or not.

Good luck at the track and enjoy!!!


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
Glad you liked the Holley. They are DEFINATELY an improvement over a Qjet. I've junked every Qjet I've ever had and been better off. To see even more improvement, you can upgrade most of the individual pieces too. Like baseplate,
jet plates, and the main body with ProForm and/or Holley parts. I have a Proform main body and HP 950 Jet plates, as well as a different base. Makes it equal to a HP 950 series.


"Don't beat yourself up too much, some of them probably left for reasons unrelated to you."
I dont, ratbuddy. Most of them left because of people like you with slow cars that tell others to have slow cars. Really pathetic.


1985 Monte 406sbc, RHS ported 220s, Schoenfeld 1 3/4", 3" exhaust, Dynomax Ultra-Flo, Holley ported Strip Dominator, Dual Holley Blues, Holley HP 950, Comp roller 236/245, .570/.574
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,273
Likes: 1
10+ Year
Member
Offline
10+ Year
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,273
Likes: 1
So this was a fun read...

I'm not a carb guy, but the way I see it, if you have something near stock (305 or 350 with stock ish cam, possibly headers, possibly some other boltons), you are better off with the CCC system in good condition. For guys with that setup, you are still thinking about mileage and drivability, and you probably don't want to do much tuning. If it runs bad, it isn't the computer holding you back, its that you need to have the carb rebuilt by someone who knows what they are doing. After that, keep it clean and fix anything that breaks and you are good to go.
If you are making well over 1 hp/cubic inch or otherwise maxing out a Q jet but don't want to jack with carbs all the time, get an Edelbrock, set it up right, and you will get most of the power without as much headache, and probably won't have to jack with it much.
If you are focused on making the most power possible, get a Holley and learn to tune it, because you will either be tuning it yourself, paying for your tuner's kid's college, or getting tired of it and kicking it to the curb. It WILL make more power, but there is a line of people that will all attest to the extra 5 hp not being worth the headache.

And then there's lazy EFI guys like me who don't want to do anything besides put gas in it and read a code when something goes wrong smile


Shawn

'85 MC with budget 5.3L swap, TH350 with stock 2.14 rear end
It ain't much off the line, but it's nice on the highway
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 2
15+ Year
Member
Offline
15+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 2
Its good that the OP is enjoying his car. It is unusual his old Qjet bogged, as Qjets are not supposed to bog when set up correctly. Mine doesn't, it responds crisply when I blip the throttle. By their design, Qjets are highly responsive to low airflow conditions which makes up the majority of street driving. This is where Holleys are at their worst as they have far less sensitivity with low airflow and use large dual accel pumps as a band aid. Accel pumps compensate for a carb's inability to respond to quick changes in airflow, bigger the accel pump the poorer the carb can respond to airflow changes. Therefore, a carb with a smaller accel pump is a better street carb than one with big accel pumps to cover up its flaws for street use. Holley double pumpers, which are good race track carbs, are very poor at sensing engine requirements and require two large accel pumps to hide their poor airflow response.

Another way to think of it is that a Qjet and most oem carbs supplies fuel as the engine requires it, while a double pumper forces fuel down the engine if it needs it or not. Which is not great for MPGs or engine life. But both carbs can be made to work, which the OP seems to have done.

As for Holleys history, they were never a very popular oem carb supplier. They only became popular after they became available only in the aftermarket. Most aftermarket carbs available today are old oem designs that were outdated back in the 60s yet alone today. Many superior carb designs including oem from the late 60s though the 80s are discontinued and forgotten by the general public. Even Holley and Eddy figured out, most hotrodders only want outdated 60s carbs because they are cool.

Last edited by Buick Runner; 07/13/17 05:11 PM.

SBC powered 1987 Regal with TES headers, ZZ4 intake, ZZ4 PROM chip, mini starter, THM2004R, 2500 stall converter, 2040 cam, CCC system, and 3.73 posi rear.

2008 ex NPS P71 Crown Victoria, cop motor, cop shocks, cop brakes, and Jmod.

Never argue with an idiot.
They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
"If you are focused on making the most power possible, get a Holley and learn to tune it, because you will either be tuning it yourself, paying for your tuner's kid's college, or getting tired of it and kicking it to the curb."

That is VERY true. That would be the down side of Holleys- always tuning them. Every day it starts different.

"As for Holleys history, they were never a very popular oem carb supplier.'

That's interesting seeing that ALL LS6 Chevelles came with them. I believe all the COPO cars came with them too. But I might be wrong. I'd venture to say any of the high horsepower small and big
blocks came with Holleys, or at least the option. And every single person I know in real life has junked their Qjet, went Holley, and got faster. As I've already said, I saw it proven on the dyno. And I'd bet money
my 950 HP flows better than any thing anyone thats posted in this thread had.
But then, my 406 will be putting out around 550hp as a daily driver. It must be a race car.


1985 Monte 406sbc, RHS ported 220s, Schoenfeld 1 3/4", 3" exhaust, Dynomax Ultra-Flo, Holley ported Strip Dominator, Dual Holley Blues, Holley HP 950, Comp roller 236/245, .570/.574
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
I
Member
OP Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
The replaced q jet was a decent carb somtimes it never bogged. It was unreliable as somtimes secondaries should come on and they did not. The new ultra double pumper however kicks in nice and abrupt lol. I'm not at all concerned with gas mileage I gave that up when the 3grand non lock up went in. But so far I'm very happy with the holley looks like I may need to start a tuning class.

Last edited by II duece; 07/14/17 01:55 AM.
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
I
Member
OP Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
That may be the weirdest thing I have ever seen lol.

Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
I
Member
OP Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 89
Nope just a small block.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Buick Runner
Its good that the OP is enjoying his car. It is unusual his old Qjet bogged, as Qjets are not supposed to bog when set up correctly. Mine doesn't, it responds crisply when I blip the throttle. By their design, Qjets are highly responsive to low airflow conditions which makes up the majority of street driving. This is where Holleys are at their worst as they have far less sensitivity with low airflow and use large dual accel pumps as a band aid. Accel pumps compensate for a carb's inability to respond to quick changes in airflow, bigger the accel pump the poorer the carb can respond to airflow changes. Therefore, a carb with a smaller accel pump is a better street carb than one with big accel pumps to cover up its flaws for street use. Holley double pumpers, which are good race track carbs, are very poor at sensing engine requirements and require two large accel pumps to hide their poor airflow response.

Another way to think of it is that a Qjet and most oem carbs supplies fuel as the engine requires it, while a double pumper forces fuel down the engine if it needs it or not. Which is not great for MPGs or engine life. But both carbs can be made to work, which the OP seems to have done.


Everything in bold is incorrect. I really wish people wouldn't post things they have no clue about. I'm sure you're intentions are good but posting misinformation is not helpful at all.

The ONLY difference in a mechanical carb (DP) and vacuum carb is how the opening of the secondaries are controlled. Fuel metering is handled in the same manner. Now, different boosters do generate different fuel "curves" and atomize the fuel better but that works the same for both type carbs. I can promise you a mechanical secondary carb with annular discharge boosters when tuned properly on a health engine will give near fuel injection response right off idle.

The size and number of accelerator pumps isn't any indications of efficiency or how much fuel is "dumped" - it's all about the "tune" with the pump cams and squirters on the Holleys. There's no more chance of washing down the engine and killing engine life with a mechanical secondary carb as it is with a vacuum carb if it's set up properly. All the horror stories generated around mechanical secondary carbs stem solely from folks that probably had no business working on the car to begin with.


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by TooSlow406
I'd bet money my 950 HP flows better than any thing anyone thats posted in this thread had.
But then, my 406 will be putting out around 550hp as a daily driver. It must be a race car.


While I'm on a roll, if you're saying your 950 flows more air that my old 850/880 then I'd agree there. If you're saying it is a better carb than mine, that's an unsubstantiated statement. If you lived closer, I'd gladly let you try mine and see what you think afterwards. I'm fairly certain Holley doesn't make a 950 with annular discharge boosters out of the box. Some engines respond better to the AD boosters than others, if yours happened to be one, I might have a hard time getting it back from you.

Here's a dyno comparison
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/carburetor-showdown/

Also, not EVERYONE here thinks a 550hp engine means it's in a race car. I had a pump gas 406 making a dyno certified 614HP at 6400rpm and 552TQ at 5200rpm. While not all that hard to do now, not many folks were really driving 600+ N/A small blocks in the 1990s. It was my only ride,,, drove it every day until 1992 and made frequent 360-400 mile round trips in the car. All power car with air, no weight reduction, and full competition stereo system including two 15" subs and three amps. Ran 11-teens on that engine and easy 10.30s on a single kit and 10.0s triggering a second kit. In over 210 grudge races I lost 4 races, two due to issues with a bad fuel pump. Once I installed the 614HP engine, I only had to hit the button in one of those races and it was at the top of third on a dude spraying the entire way. Again, not all that impressive by today’s standards but it was a hoss 25-years ago.

I saw your build post and know you plan on doing a big cubic inch engine later that I'm SURE will make more power than my old engine, just saying there's still a few that frequent the board that knows a little about daily driving a quick street car.


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
From BadSS:
"Also, not EVERYONE here thinks a 550hp engine means it's in a race car."
I know. You and a few others have quick, if not downright fast, cars. I'm just tired of these "stock only" guys bringing everything down. I remember when Rickster was here and he told me he wasn't going to be around
because he got tired of the same garbage and no one would listen. Seems most of these people think you can't have anything that doesn't say Edelbrock on your car and still drive it every day. Same with Mike
Kurtz, who may have the fastest Gbody.

Maybe some time this year I'll get to update my build post. Cars been sitting in our storage lot for 2 years now.


1985 Monte 406sbc, RHS ported 220s, Schoenfeld 1 3/4", 3" exhaust, Dynomax Ultra-Flo, Holley ported Strip Dominator, Dual Holley Blues, Holley HP 950, Comp roller 236/245, .570/.574
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 2
15+ Year
Member
Offline
15+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by BadSS
Originally Posted by Buick Runner
Its good that the OP is enjoying his car. It is unusual his old Qjet bogged, as Qjets are not supposed to bog when set up correctly. Mine doesn't, it responds crisply when I blip the throttle. By their design, Qjets are highly responsive to low airflow conditions which makes up the majority of street driving. This is where Holleys are at their worst as they have far less sensitivity with low airflow and use large dual accel pumps as a band aid. Accel pumps compensate for a carb's inability to respond to quick changes in airflow, bigger the accel pump the poorer the carb can respond to airflow changes. Therefore, a carb with a smaller accel pump is a better street carb than one with big accel pumps to cover up its flaws for street use. Holley double pumpers, which are good race track carbs, are very poor at sensing engine requirements and require two large accel pumps to hide their poor airflow response.

Another way to think of it is that a Qjet and most oem carbs supplies fuel as the engine requires it, while a double pumper forces fuel down the engine if it needs it or not. Which is not great for MPGs or engine life. But both carbs can be made to work, which the OP seems to have done.


Everything in bold is incorrect. I really wish people wouldn't post things they have no clue about. I'm sure you're intentions are good but posting misinformation is not helpful at all.

The ONLY difference in a mechanical carb (DP) and vacuum carb is how the opening of the secondaries are controlled. Fuel metering is handled in the same manner. Now, different boosters do generate different fuel "curves" and atomize the fuel better but that works the same for both type carbs. I can promise you a mechanical secondary carb with annular discharge boosters when tuned properly on a health engine will give near fuel injection response right off idle.

The size and number of accelerator pumps isn't any indications of efficiency or how much fuel is "dumped" - it's all about the "tune" with the pump cams and squirters on the Holleys. There's no more chance of washing down the engine and killing engine life with a mechanical secondary carb as it is with a vacuum carb if it's set up properly. All the horror stories generated around mechanical secondary carbs stem solely from folks that probably had no business working on the car to begin with.



BadSS, I do not post info I believe is bad or false. Here is a page about the various different types of carbs that are commonly used in V8 hotrodding. This is where I got the info you disagree with. http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofcrb.htm

To quote from the page:

Quote
Rochester, Holley, Carter, etc Carbs

What is the difference between Rochester, Carter, Holley, and Edelbrock, Barry Grant, et alii.

The first three brands have been available on factory production cars. Edelbrock and Barry Grant, among others, are aftermarket only, but are based on, and thus functionally similar to certain carbs from Rochester, Carter, and Holley.

Holley carbs were found on some production cars through the ages, but certainly not to the extent of the proliferation of Rochester or Carter carbs. please let us not forget the eminently forgettable Holley/Weber progressive (yes, progressive, as in one primary and one secondary) 2bbl carb found on such notable cars as the Vega, Pinto, and a slew of offshore 4 bangers... There were a whole bunch of these "OEM Holley" carbs produced. In truth, Holley carbs became much more popular after they became available only as aftermarket carburetors.

In point of fact, the real rival to Rochester over the years was really Carter. The Thermoquad was Carter's answer to the Q-jet. It is also a spreadbore and has the added advantage (or disadvantage) of having a phenolic fuel bowl. This was intended to prevent heat transfer to the fuel with the higher underhood temps of emissions-controlled engines, but the plastic had a tendency to warp and split.

Sadly, Carters are quite obscure nowadays due to the proliferation of Q-Jets and Hollies. They are still available, but fetch a premium, as do new Hollies or Edelbrock carbs.

Edelbrock has two basic carb models, one based on the Carter AFB (square bore) [right guys???], and the other based on a Carter spreadbore that was much more similar to the Q-jet. The difference between these late-model Carters and Quadrajets was that the Carter had two Power Pistons, one for each primary venturii. This made the Carter eminently tunable: imagine boring only cylinders 1,3,5, and 7 0.030" over (one bank of cyls with bigger displacement), and leaving the other 4 alone, but still being able to tune the carb perfectly for both banks!

Barry Grant carbs are based on the typical Holley squarebore design, but are much more tuneable than Holleys are (and you pay for the advantage!). This because you can change the size of the venturiis by adding or removing sleeves to/from the venturii.

There are other carb brands available, one of which is Predator. The Predator (and the Kendig before it) use 2D venturies - basically a square passageway which narrows in one dimension only. Obviously this makes the variation in the venturi much easier to implement, as you only need to move a linear surface, not a circular one.

Which One????

This is a subjective question. The Holley guys will scream Holley. The Q-jets will cringe and support their local carb.

Whichever route you go, be prepared to expend time and energy learning how it works. There is nothing worse than tweaking a mechanism about which little is known.

My Holley doesn't bog. It can be susceptible to bogging if either the accelerator pump linkage has too much play or if too light a spring is installed in the secondary diaphragm housing (in the case of vacuum secondary carbs).

I don't know for sure what it was "designed" for, but I do know the still very popular 4150 series was introduced in 1957 for production vehicles, and that it and the 4160 model were used on production vehicles for some time after that. Also, I have had my Holley on my car in anything but WOT conditions. Take start-and-stop Washington D.C. traffic, for instance. Gotta love the downtown area around 15th and Constitution when the tourists are in full force! I even have good idle with it.

Now, one thing about Holley that separates it from Q-Jet is that Holley is a company that makes many different carburetors. The Q-jet is, itself, a carburetor. So, to blanketly say a Holley is optimized for WOT would be much more accurate if you're referencing the huge Dominator. However, that would not necessarily be true of a 390 cfm or 450 cfm Holley 4160 with vacuum secondaries. These would provide good economy and part throttle driveability even on small V8's. With enough tuning, I've gotten my 600 cfm squarebore to be acceptably efficient.

For a pure drag car, I dunno. I don't know from experience, but I've read some accounts that claim the Q-jet can be made to provide stellar performance even in drag racing. See, I can say nice things about Q-Jets, too :-)

I will sorta agree, that for any car that sees street driving in real traffic, the added sophisitcation of the Q-jet is unmatched. I will say that even though I've gotten acceptable efficiency from my Holley, it is not as forgiving of lead-footedness as the Q-Jet. However, here again, the carb under consideration is but one model: the 4160, part 1850-3. Another Holley, say a 4175 spreadbore with vac secondaries, (which has primaries almost as small as a Q-Jet) may provide much better economy. Some of the later Holleys even allow full electronic hookup to a car's ECM to maintain OEM emissions requirements.

It is true that Holley carbs are "high performance", in the sense that they are very good for drag racing, and they are almost always the carb of choice on dedicated drag-race cars. At wide open throttle, Holley's work very well, and this is what they are designed to do best. They are also modular, which makes them easy to rebuild, and relatively inexpensive.

However, if you drive your car on the street most of the time, you probably drive at full throttle for no more than a few seconds per day, if that. Under these conditions, there is relatively little airflow through the carburetor; for a carburetor to work well on the street, it has to have sensitive boosters that respond to small amounts of airflow. This is where the Holley carbs are at their worst. They have the least sensitive booster venturis of any carburetor I know of, which makes them poor low-speed performers; the usual result is poor gas mileage and increased exhaust pollutants. In the US where gas is relatively cheap this may be liveable with, in other countries where gas costs as much as US $5 per gallon, a Holley is probably not a great choice for a mainly street-driven car.

Both Carter carburetors and Quadrajets are designed from the start to be very responsive to part-throttle, low-airflow conditions. They use double or triple booster venturis, vacuum-responsive metering rods, and air-valve secondaries, all of which make the carb adapt better to the engine under the varied loads and speeds of street driving. Carter carbs are elegantly simple designs and easy to understand, Quadrajets are quite complex and it takes a little more effort and knowledge to tune one of them correctly, but once you get it done you will get better gas mileage, less exhaust pollution, better part throttle response, and just as good full-throttle performance. In my opinion, for a mainly street-driven car a Carter or Qjet is considerably better suited than a Holley. Between the Carter and Qjet it comes down to personal choice - each has advantages, especially if price is a factor and the Qjet is already on your car! The Qjet is a spreadbore carb (small primaries, big secondaries) which helps it perform well at both part-throttle and full-throttle.

For my money the best street carb of all is one that is no longer available - - the last and best Carter design, the ThermoQuad, which replaced the Carter AVS, which in turn replaced the Carter AFB that Edelbrock and Carter still make to this day. Like the Qjet, the ThermoQuad was a spreadbore design, and unlike the Qjet, it is a very simple and yet very effective design.

Unfortunately, mainly because of nostalgia and the association with 60's muscle cars, people buy older, less efficient carburetor designs in preference to newer ones. Holley found that out with their new-design 4010 and 4011 carbs which no one would buy in enough quantity to be profitable, and the only Carter that attained cult status is the ancient AFB design that Carter had already improved upon even before the muscle car era ended - it was already obsolete in the 1960's!

Some cynic once said something like "a carburetor is an incredibly ingenious and complex device designed to provide exactly the wrong air/fuel ratio under all conditions of load and speed". That's definitely not true, but sadly there's an element of truth in it, which is why every new car uses EFI.

Here's a little idea of mine to think about. A carburetor is supposed to sense airflow and meter fuel in response, which is how it "adjusts" to varying loads and engine rpms. An ideal carburetor would be so sensitive to air-velocity that it not need an accelerator pump at all (all the accelerator pump does is compensate for the carbs inability to respond to quick changes in airflow). It turns out there is at least one type of carburetor that *is* so responsive to air-flow that it does not, in fact, need an accel. pump - that is the Weber carb and its derivatives (Japanese copies , etc).

Carrying this line of reasoning a little further, a carb that gets by with a smaller accelerator pump (a smaller squirt of gasoline is adequate to cover up the carbs deficiencies) is a better street carb than one that requires a bigger accel. pump shot to cover up its flaws, i.e is more responsive to airflow and more likely to give you good mileage and good throttle response. A little investigation shows that ThermoQuads, Qjets, AFB's, AVS's, etc, all have smaller accel pump volume than Holleys. Worst of all are double-pumper, mechanical secondary Holleys, which, while great race carbs, don't really do a very good job of sensing the engines requirements at all - they need not one but two massive accelerator pumps to cover up their poor response to airflow.

While I don't doubt that someone who know what they are doing can make any of the above carbs work on their car, I think it is clear that by design the ThermoQuad, Qjet, AVS, etc, are better suited to an engine that works over a wide range of rpm and loading, i.e., any engine that runs mainly on the street.

Of course other factors such as availability, cost, and reliability go into any carb decision too. But if someone laid all these carbs out in front of me, all brand new, shiny, and functioning correctly, and asked me to pick one for my daily-driver car, the Holley - any Holley - is the last one I would pick. I would pick the ThermoQuad first, the Qjet next, the AVS after that, then the AFB, then vacuum secondary Holley's, and finally mechanical secondary Holley's.

Anyone preparing to vent their displeasure with my choices, remember, this is just my opinion! There's room in the world for a lot of different ones!

I've tried the Q-jet and Holley Double Pumper on my 71's 455. I'm happier with the 750 vacuum operated secondaries. I've slightly modified mine, but it works like a CHAMP. Either should do fine, as long as it's set up correctly for the application.



Tooslow, 550 hp is pretty radical power level for a street car, even by modern sports car standards, and is especially high for the outdated frame and body structure in G bodies which start to break down at around 400 hp, even in pristine rust free shape yet alone the common rust bucket. Seen ripped rear lca mounts, blown out rear windshields from body twist, etc well below 500 hp. Just 110 hp from my old V6 caused cracks in the middle pillars on my Regal, these cars are as strong and rigid as a wet noodle and require a good amount of reinforcing.

Also I am tired of hearing about misinformation about how Qjets are junk, CCC is junk, and other BS. The Qjet CCC system can easily support 400 HP, and mine drives likes its EFI. At idle, I can put it in reverse and it back up over hills with no throttle applied at 600 rpm, and the engine accelerates smoothly with no lag when I press the pedal.


Last edited by Buick Runner; 07/14/17 11:52 PM.

SBC powered 1987 Regal with TES headers, ZZ4 intake, ZZ4 PROM chip, mini starter, THM2004R, 2500 stall converter, 2040 cam, CCC system, and 3.73 posi rear.

2008 ex NPS P71 Crown Victoria, cop motor, cop shocks, cop brakes, and Jmod.

Never argue with an idiot.
They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by TooSlow406

I know. You and a few others have quick, if not downright fast, cars. I'm just tired of these "stock only" guys bringing everything down.,,,,,, Seems most of these people think you can't have anything that doesn't say Edelbrock on your car and still drive it every day.

Maybe some time this year I'll get to update my build post. Cars been sitting in our storage lot for 2 years now.


Thanks for the compliment, I wasn't fishing for one, but I'll humbly take it - LOL,

I feel your pain but there are a lot more people that frequent the board that have stock or mild applications that the CCC and Edelbrocks will work on. I'm all about not wasting money and there's a time when it's more suitable to recommend a kit and keeping the CCC. There are even times when it's more appropriate to recommend an Edelbrock over a Holley,,, but that situation is MUCH rarer in my opinion than recommending the CCC over the Holley. I used to own a speed shop and have to admit, we sold a lot of Edelbrock carbs and hardly anyone came back complaining that it didn't run right. Based on the sales experience, I'd say they work better out of the box on a mild to moderate engines compared to the Holley - I tried tuning on one and said never again. Customers brought back a lot more Holley carbs and I would tell them I'd refund their money if I couldn't tune the thing to their satisfaction, but I expected to be compensated for my time if they were happy with the tune. I made a lot more money tuning the carb than I did selling one - I never had to refund the customer for the carb (except for one 4010).

Anyway, good luck and looking forward to seeing an update on the build soon!


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Buick Runner

BadSS, I do not post info I believe is bad or false. Here is a page about the various different types of carbs that are commonly used in V8 hotrodding. This is where I got the info you disagree with. http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofcrb.htm


OK, so you posted information in the first person when it's actually information you read somewhere on the internet and you have NO personal experience to know whether or not it is BS or not. Good job man - by the way, that's not helpful either.

This would be a more appropriate response: "Here's a link that I saw on the internet. I don't know if all the info is valid or not, but appears to be a good read." That way your first person reply doesn't cancel out someone else's first person reply who actual knows what they're talking about.

I wasn’t going to read the link or even the cut and paste from the link, but while on the throne, I did read the insert and did a search for “forced” and “forces” and didn’t find anything there to indicate the author thinks a DP forces fuel into the engine whether needed or not. So, I’m assuming you came to your own and wrong conclusion about that.

As far as the info you posted on larger vs small accel pumps - He states: “a carb that gets by with a smaller accelerator pump (a smaller squirt of gasoline is adequate to cover up the carbs deficiencies) is a better street carb than one that requires a bigger accel. pump shot to cover up its flaws, i.e is more responsive to airflow and more likely to give you good mileage and good throttle response.”

His statement is accurate. You leaving out the info in the parenthesis and the word “shot” in “pump shot” makes what you posted inaccurate. If you need a smaller pump SHOT in one carb than the other, then yes the carb requiring a lesser pump SHOT (squirt of gas) is more efficiently metering the fuel in low vacuum situations. This is the case with the annular discharge boosters available in some Holleys – they require a lesser pump SHOT when compared to the more common down-leg booster carbs of the same CFM. However, usually when you need a lot of fuel from the pump SHOT it’s because the cam chosen is too big for the intended application (mainly the stall speed of the converter), or said another way, the stall speed on the converter is too low for the cam.

The author also states: “Unfortunately, mainly because of nostalgia and the association with 60's muscle cars, people buy older, less efficient carburetor designs in preference to newer ones. Holley found that out with their new-design 4010 and 4011 carbs which no one would buy in enough quantity to be profitable”

It appears by your post, you believe what the author wrote. The reason the 4010 and 4011 failed was because they did not respond well to tuning much if any from the stock setting/configuration. I’m using first person here because I know from firsthand experience. The only Holley carb I’ve never been able to get running right on the street in well over 100 cases,, including a few Dominators,,,, was a 4010. If you or the author had tuned on a 4010 or 4011 you wouldn’t think it’s a superior design. Newer, sure,,, more efficient, maybe,,,,, superior, no. I’m going to fall short of calling it a crap carb because it worked fairly well if it didn’t need much tuning, but it was NOT a “performance carb” and fell WAY short of the older design in regards to performance and tune-ability and that’s what people expect from a Holley - not having to break out the drill bits if you needed more "squirt" - which is typically needed when running a healthy cam. We quite selling them in my old speed shop because EVERY person that bought one wanted to return it. I’m sure we weren’t the only shop that quit selling them for the same reason.

Man, I really don’t like ragging on people and I’m not doing it to embarrass you or trying to convince you to think any other way than you do. If I didn’t care about the board or the folks that come here, I’d just let it go. However, I consider this the best resource for the SS community and felt like if I know something is wrong, it should be made known.


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Buick Runner

Tooslow, 550 hp is pretty radical power level for a street car, even by modern sports car standards, and is especially high for the outdated frame and body structure in G bodies which start to break down at around 400 hp, even in pristine rust free shape yet alone the common rust bucket. Seen ripped rear lca mounts, blown out rear windshields from body twist, etc well below 500 hp. Just 110 hp from my old V6 caused cracks in the middle pillars on my Regal, these cars are as strong and rigid as a wet noodle and require a good amount of reinforcing.


Aside from the stress cracks in your Regal, have you seen these issues in person or just from photos and information on the internet? The reason I ask is I'm sure these things have happened, but not sure of the actual situation, circumstances involved, or power level of the engine or the engine/car combinations that caused these "issues". Are we talking a ripped lower control arm mount in a 500fwhp car or a 500rwhp set up with a 5500 stall and 5.13 gears set up for the 1/8 mile - which may or may not have happened if they had an anti-roll bar?

Here's what I know - we had a car club that had 10 G-bodies, 8 did not make less than 400 HP. The only one that had any kind of stress fracture was mine and it was a hairline crack where the roof meets the front windshield pillar. I believe it occurred after a 10.008 second pass hitting the 150-shot out of the gate, rolling to a 350 shot in 2nd and activating both in 3rd - with the nitrous that's about 760 fwhp at launch and around 1100 fwhp in 3rd gear. I got ejected from the track that day because I had not put a cage in the car at that time - stupid but true. I highly doubt it would have happened if I had the cage in the car - which anyone making that kind of power should. I did note that the bolt holes for the rear upper control arms were starting to elongate and reinforced them back when I had a 500-ish HP engine - probably had around 300 passes at that power level (about half were with an additional 150 shot). No one else had any problems what so ever with twisting the frame, stress fractures, or bursting windshields - including a Conley built GN that ran 10.40s.

I don't disagree that the frames on these cars are flimsy and flex, and understand you think there is an issue. However, based on what I've seen,,,, I just don't think it's problem for most people on this board - except maybe for the most serious road racers and those drag racing that don't have, but should have a roll cage in the car. That's assuming as you indicated we're not talking about a frame even more weakened by rust and that the body mounts are in good condition.

Originally Posted by Buick Runner
Also I am tired of hearing about misinformation about how Qjets are junk, CCC is junk, and other BS. The Qjet CCC system can easily support 400 HP, and mine drives likes its EFI. At idle, I can put it in reverse and it back up over hills with no throttle applied at 600 rpm, and the engine accelerates smoothly with no lag when I press the pedal.


As far as I’m concerned, him posting about Q-jets being junk based on his experience isn’t any different than you repeatedly posting about frame issues because of your Regal.


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
20+ Year
Member
Offline
20+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,973
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Buick Runner
Most of the Gbody Buicks, even GNs either had 4 to 6 lower body bushings not installed, my n/a Regal Limited had 4 missing lower body bushings, but I installed those 4 lower bushings which did improve the handling.


I don't know if I'm getting close to being considered an A-hole, or already one by posting this,,,, but did the stress cracks in your Regal happen before or after replacing those missing bushings? If not,,, do you think this might have something to do with your Regal's stress cracks?

I was doing a search on body bushings because I thought I remembered that Buick used softer bushings and left off one of the pair of body bushings that all the Monte Carlos had for a softer ride and ran across that old post. Man, do you really think using what happened on your Regal that already was missing the #5 bushing that all Monte Carlos have (especially if they happened before replacing the missing bushings) a good example of how easy it is to generate stress fractures on body panels of a Monte Carlo?

I am not saying these frames are great and acknowledge they are flimsy and doing something/anything to strengthen and support the frame is a great idea even on a totally stock ride to improve handling. However, if the frame and bushings are in good shape I am saying the chances of a Monte Carlo developing stress fractures or having any other frame related issues is not something most should worry about and for sure is not near as great as your posts would imply.


Original owner - 1985 SS black hardtop w/gray interior. Frame-on restoration in progress. 406 sleeper w/modified FIRST TPI, 1.875" headers and dual 3.5" Borla exhaust. TH400, Ford 9", anti-roll bar, and notched frame. Dropped 2", 18" wheels, and F/R disk brakes. 10-point cage w/swing-out bars, custom gauges, and custom, audiophile stereo system.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 169
M
10+ Year
Member
Offline
10+ Year
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 169
After reading this post and the various replies, it only confirms why I choose not to engage and have frankly quit reading (along with many of my colleagues) the topics on many of the various websites. I never realized so many engine, suspension and automotive experts existed. If you are not qualified to comment then don't. And for those reading the various posts, do not always believe what you read is correct.


Mr. Engineer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,786
10+ Year
Member
Offline
10+ Year
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,786
Nah. Your good badSS keep going.


1988 monte carlo ss 408 sbc
-----------------------------------------------------
1984 monte carlo cs 400 sbc
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 2
15+ Year
Member
Offline
15+ Year
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,155
Likes: 2
Stress cracks happened before I installed the missing bushings. Replacing them all with poly, as well as installing a Tinman rear seat brace has prevented more from forming. Along with that, I also removed the cracked body filler on my roof seam and found pretty poor factory body work, huge panel gaps, etc. Heck, one side was welded while the other side was brazed. Welded the gaps shut before applying new filler.

When I was replacing the bushings, I could wiggle the frame horns with one hand. When I reinstalled my front fenders, I could not correctly align them with the car on stands because the frame sagged so badly. Had to put all 4 wheels on the ground to get the fender alignment correct.

As for 400hp, it is pretty widely known on this board, Gbodyforum, and GN forums. I first heard about the 400 hp limit on GN boards as that when many of the guys complained that stuff began to break. Also this problem has been reported on gbodyforums, some guys their think that even 400 hp is wishful thihking andits really 350 or lower. One GN owner posted about how he snapped his lca mounts on the street, his car was 450 hp. Another guy at the track blew his windshield out from body twist at lanuch. Even the Tinman brace instructions states it does not come predrilled due to that many high power g bodies are already distorted. Now many of these problems happened on cars that were not reinforced and Regals have the poorest body reinforcing of all G bodies. Even Map, who is a poster here and a suspension expert states how flimsy the stock frames and bodies are on these cars.

Here are some helpful links from G body forum, and even non Regal guys get stress cracks.

https://gbodyforum.com/threads/stress-cracks.22370/

https://gbodyforum.com/threads/f41-and-aftermarket-bracing-diagrams-more-pics-added.8126/page-19

https://gbodyforum.com/threads/how-much-is-to-much-hp.60525/

On the frame reinforcing thread on gbodyforums, it is stated by Brother Al and others that GM downsized the G body in the 80s, deleting many of the bracing and using thinner metal than the late 70s g bodies. Because of this, the rear sections of 80s G bodies are especially floppy, which leads to common rear roof cracks, as well as rear frame horn cracks just past the rear axle hump. New and complete sets of body bushings and a rear frame brace do help make the car stronger and probably the first step before making more power.

Quote
As far as the info you posted on larger vs small accel pumps - He states: “a carb that gets by with a smaller accelerator pump (a smaller squirt of gasoline is adequate to cover up the carbs deficiencies) is a better street carb than one that requires a bigger accel. pump shot to cover up its flaws, i.e is more responsive to airflow and more likely to give you good mileage and good throttle response.”


What I have posted about Holley is indeed valid, no matter how much you try to nitpick what I said to prove me wrong. Bigger accel pumps = bigger shots to compensate for weaker booster sensitivity at low airflow, nit picking about that does not disprove what I stated.

Quote
OK, so you posted information in the first person when it's actually information you read somewhere on the internet and you have NO personal experience to know whether or not it is BS or not. Good job man - by the way, that's not helpful either.



Just assuming that to evoke an Ad hominem fallacy is not helpful either, good job sir.

Quote
I wasn’t going to read the link or even the cut and paste from the link, but while on the throne, I did read the insert and did a search for “forced” and “forces” and didn’t find anything there to indicate the author thinks a DP forces fuel into the engine whether needed or not. So, I’m assuming you came to your own and wrong conclusion about that.


Again a nit pick, but the author does infer it and again, just assuming I must be wrong doesn't prove anything other than you are trying to discredit me by any means including appeal to ridicule. Here is the author's statement you can not find: "Difference: double pumper MAKES the engine take fuel, cutting down mileage, the vac secondaries ALLOW the engine to take on more fuel as needed. The DP gets away with the mechanical secondaries opening RIGHT NOW by adding a second pump shot to cover the big air hole it created. Which the engine MAY or MAY NOT be ready to deal with. It will respond, but with a lot more wasted fuel. With the vacuum secondary, the engine "tells" the secondaries when to open by the vacuum signal. Loose metaphoric comparison: try to make a baby eat without making a mess. Won't happen." He is inferring "forces."

Quote
His statement is accurate. You leaving out the info in the parenthesis and the word “shot” in “pump shot” makes what you posted inaccurate. If you need a smaller pump SHOT in one carb than the other, then yes the carb requiring a lesser pump SHOT (squirt of gas) is more efficiently metering the fuel in low vacuum situations. This is the case with the annular discharge boosters available in some Holleys – they require a lesser pump SHOT when compared to the more common down-leg booster carbs of the same CFM. However, usually when you need a lot of fuel from the pump SHOT it’s because the cam chosen is too big for the intended application (mainly the stall speed of the converter), or said another way, the stall speed on the converter is too low for the cam.


I mostly agree with this, other than the nit pick to prove me wrong when I was indeed correct. Bigger accel pump = bigger shot, its why the accel pump is made bigger. Most people who swap cams do not bother to match their converter stall with their cam, I did.The author's statement as well as mine was refering to Holley double pumpers which Tooslow seems to believe is what all of us should use instead of the Qjets he so despises. He also states as a fact that Qjets are junk and rob power, yet I did not see you correct or rag him for stating unsupported assumptions like that.

Quote
It appears by your post, you believe what the author wrote. The reason the 4010 and 4011 failed was because they did not respond well to tuning much if any from the stock setting/configuration. I’m using first person here because I know from firsthand experience. The only Holley carb I’ve never been able to get running right on the street in well over 100 cases,, including a few Dominators,,,, was a 4010. If you or the author had tuned on a 4010 or 4011 you wouldn’t think it’s a superior design. Newer, sure,,, more efficient, maybe,,,,, superior, no. I’m going to fall short of calling it a crap carb because it worked fairly well if it didn’t need much tuning, but it was NOT a “performance carb” and fell WAY short of the older design in regards to performance and tune-ability and that’s what people expect from a Holley - not having to break out the drill bits if you needed more "squirt" - which is typically needed when running a healthy cam. We quite selling them in my old speed shop because EVERY person that bought one wanted to return it. I’m sure we weren’t the only shop that quit selling them for the same reason.


Here, I am just going to assume you misunderstood what I said instead of being an attempted strawman argument. What I meant was that many hotrodders seem to ignore and refuse newer or better carb designs in favor of outdated but cool designs from the 60s because A, its cool, and B, its what everyone else does, the bandwagon fallacy. As Tooslow stated that everyone he knows use Holley as proof Hollies are better than Qjets is merely just a appeal to popularity, ie, something being popular does not make it correct or true. A true old school hotrodder would be quite used to having to resize ports in his carb.

Quote
Man, I really don’t like ragging on people and I’m not doing it to embarrass you or trying to convince you to think any other way than you do. If I didn’t care about the board or the folks that come here, I’d just let it go. However, I consider this the best resource for the SS community and felt like if I know something is wrong, it should be made known.


Avoiding personal putdowns is one way to avoid ragging. Correcting someone you think is wrong is one thing, but attempting to infer they are ignorant is quite another, is rude, makes you look petty, and helps no one or your argument.

You are not the only one to care about this board either. I have seen toxic boards where people are outright insulted for not following the bandwagon. I was once called a coward for using a Qjet, and several places will just devolve into endless Qjet bashing, that a aftermarket carb will magically make a car gain 500 hp, etc. I don't want to see this place end up like that.

An irony I forgot to mention is how Holley is one of the worst Qjet butchers around. Seen both photos and in person the shoddy work and bizarre shortcuts Holley does to their reman Qjets. If Tooslow's only experience with qjets is with Holley reman units, no wonder he would hate Qjets. Hopefully their own carbs have better quality.

Last edited by Buick Runner; 07/16/17 07:14 AM.

SBC powered 1987 Regal with TES headers, ZZ4 intake, ZZ4 PROM chip, mini starter, THM2004R, 2500 stall converter, 2040 cam, CCC system, and 3.73 posi rear.

2008 ex NPS P71 Crown Victoria, cop motor, cop shocks, cop brakes, and Jmod.

Never argue with an idiot.
They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,856
" If you are not qualified to comment then don't. And for those reading the various posts, do not always believe what you read is correct."

Mrengineer, are you the authority on who should and should not comment? Because I've never heard of you.


And if only I didnt have *DYNO* time to prove Qjets suck, then I might consider anything you Qjet-worshippers said. Or even if you had cars that were quicker than 13 seconds.


1985 Monte 406sbc, RHS ported 220s, Schoenfeld 1 3/4", 3" exhaust, Dynomax Ultra-Flo, Holley ported Strip Dominator, Dual Holley Blues, Holley HP 950, Comp roller 236/245, .570/.574
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Help MonteCarloSS.com


Recent Contributors
86BlackSuperSport
Authorized Vendors
Tell them you saw it
on MonteCarloSS.com!


Dixie Monte Carlo Depot
Mikes Montes
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5